oh no... Honda misrates the power on 2004 s2000
 

Well it seems that Honda misrated...or should I say underrated the new 2004 S2000 engine. Honda advertised the car as having 240hp, the same as the 2L 2003 and earlier models. Well, the 2004 s2k was put on a dyno and put down 20+ wheel hp more than a 2001 S2000. Both stock, both on the same dyno.

The new s2000 is at about 220whp stock. :eek: :eek:

Ouch...I guess honda doesn't learn from other's mistakes :)

never mind...i guess i read that bakcwards : (

That's bad news for the autox guys... both RX-8s and previous MY S2Ks. I see a class change in the works for after next season. Maybe is wasn't an ECU change on the RX-8 and Honda just stole your missing HP :p


Ike

yeah but it'll still never look as good as the RX-8 haha

Does this mean the Honda owners will get a letter and have to send in more money for the extra HP? ;-)

I think the Honda looks as good if not better than the RX-8. And with 220RWHP is probably the faster car now. :eek:

mazda should follow in honda's lead

What do you mean now? It has always been faster. That is 220 to the rear wheels, not the crank. I still like the RX8 better though. :)

Yes I know it is 220 to the rear wheels that's why I put RWHP (Rear Wheel Horse Power).

Are'nt the s2k and RX-8 evenly matched? Now even the older s2k is faster than the RX8?! :(

The main difference is that the s2k is like 200-300 pounds lighter. I think that is ok considering that the rx8 has 4 seats in it. :)

most magazines got slower test times from the S2K than the RX8. I dunno why everybody here thinks its faster. Also, from what i hear, the new S2K gets the exact same times, but doesnt require such a hard launch anymore. Extra horsepower or not, its 0-60 in 6.5 seconds.

Depends on what mags you look at, but most of the good times for the S2K are 14.0 or 14.1 vs. 14.5 and up for the RX-8. and the S2K gets mid 5s 0-60.

Ike

That's what I always thought too. And in some cases with superb launches, i thought it would take a Z too.

The only way to break six seconds, 0-60, in the S2K, is to launch it near redline. (Ouch.) Same with the RX-8. They have very similar HP and torque curves and redlines (although I think the new S2K has "only" an 8 grand redline). But the S2K's a lot lighter. Neither of them is a drag-race machine by a long stretch. For a given launch technique, I suspect the S2K's a little quicker than the 8 in a straight line, especially now, but not by much.

Why are people saying the s2k is slow by quoting 1/4 and 0-60 times? Everything I've read says the s2k is built for curves, like the rx-8 but faster.

You just can't quantify a car's overall speed with a number or two.

Honestly, i think the s2k has better acceleration, quarter mile, slalom numbers than the rx8, but thats what its supposed to do because its a "pure" sports car and the 8 is a more all-around sports car, so there has to be comprimises in certain areas. The 8 has 2 more seats, but the sk2 weighs a couple hundred less.

The vtec.net article is written by one of our forum memebers - ChurchAutoTest.

HAHAHAAH now they cannot laugh at me MUAHAHAH! stupid honda! however the s2000 is a better performance car in comparison to the rx8, however it is soooo unpractical and tiny. Its cool, but convertible insurance sucks as well as its a sports car.

Although id prefer the 00/01 S2000. Dont like the fact that displacements been bumped up/redlines been lowered, aesthetic changes etc.

Did you even read the posts, or just the title of the thread?

maybe im mistaken but dont car manufactures advertise engine horsepower in the specs and not whp. So if honda advertises 240 and you dyno(which measures whp) of course you are going to get different readings.

For the same driver to take 3 passengers in an S2K from point A from zero to sixty and leave them all off at point B would take about 5 times as long as in an RX-8.:p

That is generally understood. What is happening here is that the S2000 is putting out more power to the wheels than a 240 HP car should. There is an expect drive train loss of 15% depending on cars. The new S2000 is displaying only about 8-9% drive train loss, which would suggest more than 240 HP at the crank, more like 250ish HP.

Although Polak comment makes is seem like it really isn't that high. Guess we'll have to see some properly calibrated dyno numbers.

there are a few people who can get their 2000-2003 s2k 13.9 quarter stock. I wonder what those few can do on a 2004 s2k... hmmmm. I think the rx8 looks a bit nicer "just a bit,"but the s2k can hit redline many times and still get 20 or better to the gallon.

Good point Moogle...bottom line 2 seats vs 4....I recently drove (hard) a 2002 S2k and could not tell any difference in power (vs my stock 8) and that disappointed me as I expected a little more from that car based on what I've read over the past couple of years about it...the handling was impressive though.